Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Statutory Language Aging Disability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to update statutory language for aging and disability services
Summary
A Nevada legislative committee heard Senate Bill 8, which replaces older terminology in multiple Nevada Revised Statutes to use "person with a developmental disability" and updates the title for the attorney who represents older persons and people with disabilities; no public testimony or questions were recorded.
Get email alerts on the Statutory Language Aging Disability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CARSON CITY — The Nevada Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services heard testimony on Senate Bill 8, a statutory-language update that would substitute the phrase “person with a developmental disability” into several Nevada Revised Statutes and rename the state attorney position that represents older persons and people with disabilities.
Dina Schmidt, administrator for Aging and Disability Services (ADSD), told the committee the changes are limited to terminology and do not alter the duties of the office. "This is a simple update to NRS language to more appropriately reflect the individuals served by ADSD," Schmidt said. She described the history of the office and prior statutory updates dating to 1989 and 2017 that broadened the office's scope.
The bill would substitute the term “person with a developmental disability” or similar language in multiple statutory sections, add a cross-reference to the statutory definition of developmental disability, and change the official title used in statute for the attorney who represents older persons and people with disabilities. Schmidt told the committee the draft uses the same statutory definition referenced in NRS (definitions cited back to 2007) so the terms are consistent across chapters.
Committee Chair Brownlee opened the hearing and, after Schmidt's presentation, recorded no committee questions and no members of the public offered testimony in support, opposition or neutral positions either in-person or on the phone. The committee formally closed the hearing with no recorded motions or votes during the session.
The bill sponsor did not offer additional closing remarks; the hearing was concluded with no further action recorded on the transcript.

